Detroit is bankrupt. The once-great city languishes deep in debt, unable to provide basic city services, as it debates cutting pensions and selling off the city's art collection. What's the right move? We, the writers of Gawker, have very strong opinions.

"I wanna write a thing saying Detroit should sell the art in their museum," I said in our internal "Campfire" chat this morning. The following debate ensued.

Tom S.

Why not just appropriate money from the rich people and keep the art?

John C.

give the art to the poor

Tom S.

It feels like your Peter Singer stuff is getting in the way of your communist principles, Hamilton.

Max R.

burn the art and kill the rich

Cord J.

build homes for the poor with the unused paintings

Hamilton N.

basic city services are more important than opulent art

Sam B.

lean-tos made out of paintings

Tom S.

Isn't that basically the New York Post's argument today, though, Hamilton?

Hamilton N.

no

Max R.

the art is a relic and ideological tool of class
oppression and must be destroyed. the rich must be made to answer for
their crimes and hung in the city square.

Tom S.

The poor don't NEED art.

John C.

wow check yr priv tom

Hamilton N.

if you were building a city, would you build it with a billion dollars of art in a museum and no street lights?

John C.

"poor people are beyond enlightment, why bother"—tom scocca

Tom S.

I was trying to translate Hamilton's argument, John.

Sam B.

what's the most affordable form of art

Hamilton N.

that's insane

Sam B.

dance I guess

Tom S.

I am arguing the opposite.

Hamilton N.

my only argument is an art museum is not as important as, for example, a fire department.

when it comes to city services.

Max R.

yeah but hamilton you're limiting yourself

Tom S.

That this utilitarian ethos is in harmony with the
rich people's ideology that there should be nothing provided to the
poor beyond the most grudging minimum.

9:55 AM

Tom S.

Singer-style utilitarianism is not particularly uplifting when you apply it to OTHER people.

Hamilton N.

lol

Max R.

why "sell the art to the rich" when "take money from the rich to fund the city services AND the art museum" works even better

Tom S.

Exactly.

Max has it.

Hamilton N.

Singer advocates essentially taxing the rich to near poverty

I think you are misrepresenting his ethic

John C.

are there any other things the city of detroit has access to by way of raising funds?

Hamilton N.

where are all these mythical rich people in detroit you're gonna tax to pay for that?

Sam B.

they should sell the fucking sports teams

John C.

the city doesn't own the sports teams

Sam B.

seize them

seize the pistons

now there's a post

Hamilton N.

good brainstorming happening here

Adam W.

rename the sports teams in the name of the people

The Seattle Sans-Culottes

Tom S.

Who says the rich people who get taxed have to be in Detroit?

John C.

seize all land in the city and sell it to peter theil

Max R.

no one "owns" anything, property is a fiction

Caity W.

has entered the room

Adam W.

The Detroit Mensheviki

Max R.

the city "owns" the sports teams just as much as any one person does

Sam B.

let every detroit resident play on the sports teams, helps unemployment

John C.

Detroit Levies Unprecedented Tax on Los Angelinos

Hamilton N.

I'm afraid detroit needs all the help it can get

and it's sitting on a billion dollars of art

so get that money

you can always make more art

Adam W.

i would totally argue the other side of that, hamilton

Hamilton N.

art is free.

Sam B.

they'll just spend it, what's the point

John C.

#banksy

Tom S.

But this "choice" you posit, between having art
and having fire departments, is a choice forced on the city by the
overall economic system of oppression.

Max R.

fyi oakland county, the detroit suburbs, is among the wealthiest in the US

Tom S.

You are literally arguing the Koch position, Hamilton.

Max R.

macomb isn't too shabby either

there's plenty of money around detroit

Hamilton N.

yeah that's nice but right this minute detroit is broke and I don't see full communism coming down in the next few months

Sam B.

there's no problem that can't be fixed via seizures

Max R.

you lack vision

Adam W.

tom's right

Max R.

you will be hung with the rest of them when the time comes

John C.

well actually impoverished enraged detroiters will be a suitable revolutionary vanguard

Hamilton N.

We let detroit go to hell because we disagree with the theoretical tenets of capitalism.

John C.

so it would be best for them to remain without services

Tom S.

So you sell the art and buy a tiny bit of time and
then there's no art and the city goes bankrupt again and still the rich
suburbs, which got rich sucking the money and life out of the city,
will be rich.

Hamilton N.

I'm sure the dead detroit residents who couldn't get an ambulance would support that

Max R.

"sell the art because communism isnt coming soon"
is morally indistinguishable from "sell the art because captialism
demands we make a choice between it and city services"

10:00 AM

John C.

right but the more dead detroiters the more likely the underclasses will be to rise up

Tom S.

Max is correct.

Adam W.

selling the art doesn't get them an ambulance any faster

Tom S.

Why don't we sell off Detroiters' kidneys?

Hamilton N.

I'm gonna write my post in the voice of a detroit person who just got shot and can't get an ambulance

Max R.

for what its worth hamilton i don't think your gawker post will change much

so you might as well shoot for the stars

Tom S.

It will however give ammunition to the readers who've decided you're a libertarian apologist.

Hamilton N.

well fed and safe new yorkers believe detroit should have an art museum, and no street lights.

John C.

the money raised from the sale of art won't go to services

Hamilton N.

it will go to paying off the city's bankruptcy

John C.

it will go to pensions for people no longer providing services

right it will go to creditors

bond holders

pensioners

Hamilton N.

yes

the bankruptcy has to be settled before the city can move on

it doesn't magically disappear with no money

Adam W.

all i'm saying, hamilton, is you know who else would write a "sell detroit's art" post? Matt Yglesias.

Tom S.

So you are arguing for the extraction of money from Detroit, plain and simple.

YES

That is exactly correct.

You are making a Matt Yglesias argument, Hamilton.

Max R.

hahahahaha owned

Hamilton N.

is "ambulances are more important than art" a matt yglesias argument?

Max R.

hamilton nolan, gawker's matt yglesias

Hamilton N.

if so I agree.

John C.

but maybe if you make it yglesias will disagree with you

that could be fun

Hamilton N.

I haven't heard a good "art is more important than ambulances" counter argument here

Tom S.

The point is, Hamilton, that you are legitimating the false and cruel choice between ambulances and art by endorsing it.

John C.

but the sale of art has nothing to do with ambulances

you're saying "creditors are more important than art"

Tom S.

Yes.

John C.

"the satisfaction of debt is more important than art"

Hamilton N.

WHERE do you people think the money is going to come from for this bankruptcy?

the federal govt?

Tom S.

You are applauding economic injustice.

Hamilton N.

and who takes the haircut?

Tom S.

And calling it reason.

John C.

that would be one possible solution

where did the money come from to bail out GM?

where did the money come from to bail out AIG?

Tom S.

EXACTLY

John C.

JP Morgan is cutting a $13 billion check right now to the feds

Hamilton N.

oh lord

John C.

how much does detroit owe again?

10:05 AM

Tom S.

"Banks cannot go out of business, but art museums should go out of business" - Hamilton Nolan

Hamilton N.

kindergarten up in here

John C.

hamilton what's the difference between yr argument and "poor people should sell their TV before they get food stamps"

Tom S.

This is why it's a Yglesias argument.

Hamilton N.

you do realize that if a city borrows money.. and
then is run in a corrupt manner.. and then says it won't pay the money
back.. there are consequences for that

Adam W.

hamilton, you're one heartbeat away from arguing
that public services are bromides for an irrational society of
self-sacrificers. ayn rand wants her shtick back

Tom S.

Again, yes, exactly.

Adam W.

and also, ayn rand would like to buy some of that art, please

Hamilton N.

magical thinking

do you realize that detroit might, at some point in the future, like to issue bonds?

like every other city

John C.

alright write it hamilton and we'll take it to kimja

or whatever it's called

Hamilton N.

hey why not just print money on lollipops

problem solved

Tom S.

No, Hamilton, magical thinking is the belief that
looting the art museum will do anything at all to alleviate any of the
causes of Detroit's misery.

John C.

who wants to take bets on how long it takes nick denton to write an approving comment?

Tom S.

It's just more bullshit austerity.

Hamilton N.

well it'll get em $500 million

that's something

Tom S.

Well now you're also deep into another fallacy.

John C.

a better post would be "give the jpmorgan money to detroit"

Tom S.

Also incredibly popular with the right-wingers who want to loot the public possessions.

Which is that the responsible thing to do is to sell assets.

Hamilton N.

yes... that is the responsible thing to do, if the choice is between luxury assets and basic services

Tom S.

Like Bloomberg trying to sell off city-owned real estate and rent back the property.

Once you sell the assets, they're gone.

Hamilton N.

so? it's a painting

get some more when you can afford street lights

Tom S.

See, this is exactly what's blockheaded about Singerism.

10:10 AM

Tom S.

Let's sell everything in Detroit, every tree and
building and piece of land, and buy a bunch of shipping containers and
stack them up and make the people live in them.

Hamilton N.

...

Tom S.

Feed them lentils.

They don't NEED that stuff.

Much more ethical to strip their lives down to the true necessities.

Hamilton N.

your position is: let's maintain this crumbling city as it is as its residents starve and die, for nostalgia's sake

why feed them lentils when we could let them STARVE instead, while looking at art?

Max R.

are ppl in detroit starving?

Taylor B.

looks like i missed some fun stuff in campfire

Tom S.

My position is that you are trying to propitiate the forces that have destroyed the city by doing more damage to the city.

John C.

there are starving people everywhere

Max R.

not seeing a lot of stories about people in detroit starving

Hamilton N.

the forces that destroyed the city besides capitalism in general are: corrupt city govt.

Taylor B.

ban detroit, problem solved

Max R.

"besides capitalism in general" is a hell of a clause

Tom S.

Banning Detroit is not bad.

Hamilton N.

they're a loser in post industrial america

I'm fine with banning detroit and not rebuilding new orleans either

Max R.

"setting aside the massive and all-consuming system of injustice," some guys took kickbacks

Taylor B.

who needs to live that far north anyway

Hamilton N.

look to the future not the past

Tom S.

Sell the art and everything else and relocate the citizens in refugee camps in the surrounding suburbs.

That would at least be honest.

Hamilton N.

the most satisfying part of this argument is the total lack of a rational counter-proposal

"do something about capitalism"

Max R.

lol yes

your opponents are too irrational to argue with

10:15 AM

Tom S.

Yes, "reason," standard libertarian argument.

Hamilton N.

is asking for a rational counter proposal a dirty tactic?

Tom S.

"Dumb unreasonable people keep yelling about 'justice' instead of focusing on real things."

Hamilton N.

how dare you ask for a solution!

Tom S.

I offered plenty of solutions.

Make them all sell kidneys.

Raze the city and put them in refugee camps.

Eminently rational.

What's your objection?

Hamilton N.

In the absence of an actual counter proposal I have to conclude that I won the argument.